In Part 2 of this blog post series, ISO management system standards and ISO CASCO standards were compared in detail to understand the different results each is intended to deliver and show ISO CASCO standards are not types of management system standards. A hypothetical example of a single organization implementing both types of standards is now provided to show their differences and understand similarities in a new light.
Background on the JM Laboratory
The JM laboratory was very small. It performed very specialized tests on floor finishes to measure and report slip resistance using apparatus and a test method that the founder of the laboratory had invented. Despite its age and simplicity, the apparatus and method were still highly effective and had not changed for many years. Similarly, the operation of the JM laboratory was very simple but financially sound with high customer satisfaction and repeat business.
Implementing an ISO 9001 Quality Management System in the JM Laboratory
The JM laboratory decided to implement a quality management system in accordance with ISO 9001. The small organization considered its context (external and internal issues that would affect achievement of results), understood the needs and expectations of interested parties relevant to the quality management system, and determined risks and opportunities related to achieving results. Per the requirements in ISO 9001, all this planning activity was used as the team made decisions about the objectives to achieve. The team then implemented all remaining activities required by ISO 9001, which in effect initiated a PDCA cycle with regard to quality.
JM Laboratories was pleased to discover how effectively the quality management system identified and achieved objectives and were experiencing the benefits of an upward spiral of continuous improvement. None of the improvements required changes to testing apparatus and methods. They found the description on the ISO website about the complexity of the quality management system to reflect their experience:
“The level of complexity of the system will depend on each organization’s specific context. For some organizations, especially smaller ones, it may simply mean having strong leadership from the business owner, providing a clear definition of what is expected from each individual employee and how they contribute to the organization’s overall objectives, without the need for extensive documentation.”
Implementing ISO/IEC 17025 in the JM Laboratory
As the JM Laboratory progressed on its quality journey, it started to consider implementing ISO/IEC 17025. The team assumed it would be a small incremental step from fulfillment of ISO 9001 to fulfillment of ISO/IEC 17025. They observed it was the widely recognized standard for competence, consistency, and impartiality for testing laboratories and had read that it was, in effect, a type of management system standard.
But this last piece of information caused concern. They understood from firsthand experience that the intent of implementing a quality management system standard was to achieve an upward spiral of improvement, in other words, continuous improvement, of quality. That did not seem to fit for their competence, consistency, and impartiality as a testing laboratory.
What did continuous improvement of impartiality mean for a small company like theirs? They believed they easily fulfilled ISO/IEC 17025 requirements for impartiality. How much continuous improvement of impartiality would be required, if any at all? Likewise for competence and consistent laboratory operation; little technological change was needed or implemented in their laboratory to provide highly reliable and trustworthy test results. How much continuous improvement of competence and consistent operation would be required, if any at all?
JM Laboratory’s Informal Visit by an Accreditation Body
The crux of the problem was cost. ISO 9001 intended continuous improvement in quality but left the quality objectives to achieve up to the organization to determine. That approach made sense since the costs of improvements could be incurred in areas that generated higher income for their small company which offset the costs of improvement. But costs for continuous improvement of competence, consistency, and impartiality, when the laboratory already fulfilled the requirements of ISO/IEC 17025 as well as customer and market demands, generated no opportunity for higher income. It looked like ISO/IEC 17025 could be counterproductive for them.
Until, that is, they completed an informational visit by a laboratory accreditation body. In that visit they learned the difference between the upward spiral of the PDCA and the flat CoIDCh cycle. The references to risks and opportunities, and improvement, in ISO/IEC 17025 did not mean the same thing as in ISO 9001. ISO/IEC 17025 did not require ever higher levels of competence, consistency, and impartiality out of step with common sense, but rather a CoIDCh cycle addressing risks and opportunities, and improvement as needed to maintain fulfillment of ISO/IEC 17025. This was not an upward spiral cycle like quality; it was a flat cycle for maintenance of fulfillment.
However, they also learned that ISO/IEC 17025 did not “flex” with the simplicity or complexity of the organization the way ISO 9001 did. They quickly learned that some ISO/IEC 17025 fulfillment looked the same regardless of the complexity of the laboratory activities. However, they did see how a number of processes they implemented for ISO 9001 fulfillment could also be used, with minor adjustments, to fulfill similar ISO/IEC 17025 requirements.
ISO CASCO Standards Are Not ISO Management System Standards
This example shows that when put into practice, there are significant differences, and the ISO CASCO standards are not a type of ISO management system standard. However, the similarities are real, and intentional. ISO CASCO standards are written to allow organizations to use some of their management system processes, with adjustments, for fulfillment of the ISO CASO standard but do not imply that the two types of standards drive the same intended benefits.
Read the Other Blog Posts in this Series:
ISO Management System Standards vs. Conformity Assessment Standards (Part 1)
ISO Management System Standards vs. Conformity Assessment Standards (Part 2)